What needs to be done for faster than light travel?

I do agree with what you're saying in your thread. Space isn't necessarily warping, but we do know for a fact that something is happening to create
these effects. For example, gravitational lensing to Relativist's proves that space is being warped but, how do we know for certain that there isn't a
different mechanism in play that ISN'T space being bent? Personally I don't like the idea of warping space and time. I think it's wrong, proving it's
wrong is going to be near impossible IMO.

Time and dark matter compression curves cause the so called gravitational lensing and not space
being bent.
If there was any shred of truth in GR Einstein would have received the nobel prize for it.
Just because nasa is spending an obscene amount of money to keep the GR dogma alive, the gullible lap up this hoax of a GR hypothesis

I do agree with what you're saying in your thread. Space isn't necessarily warping, but we do know for a fact that something is happening to create
these effects. For example, gravitational lensing to Relativist's proves that space is being warped but, how do we know for certain that there isn't a
different mechanism in play that ISN'T space being bent? Personally I don't like the idea of warping space and time. I think it's wrong, proving it's
wrong is going to be near impossible IMO.

Time and dark matter compression curves cause the so called gravitational lensing and not space
being bent.
If there was any shred of truth in GR Einstein would have received the nobel prize for it.
Just because nasa is spending an obscene amount of money to keep the GR dogma alive, the gullible lap up this hoax of a GR hypothesis

Nonsense. Gravitational lensing is due to temporal fragmentation caused by quantum field depolarisation by massive objects.

I do agree with what you're saying in your thread. Space isn't necessarily warping, but we do know for a fact that something is happening to create
these effects. For example, gravitational lensing to Relativist's proves that space is being warped but, how do we know for certain that there isn't a
different mechanism in play that ISN'T space being bent? Personally I don't like the idea of warping space and time. I think it's wrong, proving it's
wrong is going to be near impossible IMO.

Time and dark matter compression curves cause the so called gravitational lensing and not space
being bent.
If there was any shred of truth in GR Einstein would have received the nobel prize for it.
Just because nasa is spending an obscene amount of money to keep the GR dogma alive, the gullible lap up this hoax of a GR hypothesis

Nonsense. Gravitational lensing is due to temporal fragmentation caused by quantum field depolarisation by massive objects.

Yes gravity is the weak force but, how exactly does one stop the weak force. To my knowledge, no one currently has been capable of doing this... If we
could prove that the strong force is actually gravity acting more effectively at the quantum scale, maybe we could do what Bob Lazar described. I see
this as a possibility because the strong force is more or less based on many assumptions to which could be interpreted differently.

Yes gravity is the weak force but, how exactly does one stop the weak force. To my knowledge, no one currently has been capable of doing this... If we
could prove that the strong force is actually gravity acting more effectively at the quantum scale, maybe we could do what Bob Lazar described. I see
this as a possibility because the strong force is more or less based on many assumptions to which could be interpreted differently.

If you
achieve anti gravity, you have effectively stopped gravity and it has been done

I think there is a common misconception between anti gravity and creating a gravitational field at a 180 degree angle to earths. All you need to do is
create an artificial field which should allow you to take advantage of it for space travel.

Along the way, Zvi, John Joseph and Henrik, thanks to the time-honored method of “just staring at” the loop integrand provided by unitarity,
also stumbled on a new property of gauge theory amplitudes, which tightly couples them to gravity. They found that gauge theory amplitudes can be
written in such a way that their kinematic part obeys relations that are structurally identical to the Jacobi identities known to fans of Lie
algebras. This so-called color-kinematics duality, when achieved, leads to a simple “double copy” prescription for computing amplitudes in
suitable theories of gravity: Take the gauge theory amplitude, remove the color factors and square the kinematic numerator factors.
Crudely, a graviton looks very much like two gluons laid on top of each other.

Here's the way I see it: Even though it looks like one, gravity is not a fundamental force. It's the result of virtual particles (or the annihilation
of such) pushing against real ones. Although it could be argued that real particles (mass) aren't exactly particles but localized gradients of high
energy density. I think the math behind it would be easier to work out if you didn't bother using units of mass, but instead treated mass as its
energy equivalent localized to a given volume. (Different way of thinking of the problem, but would eliminate need for conversions and should solve
faster.)

Gravity seems to work on an inverse square like radiation sources, and perhaps the best form for energy radiating in a gradient distributed through a
given volume is vector math dealing with tensors. To some extent some stuff like this has been done already, but terms of input/output could be more
refined.

Thing is, we need to lick this "dark matter/energy" thing first. (Which I'd suspect as being the quantum foam of virtual particle annihilations.)
Figure out the underlying mechanism for that, and if it can be manipulated by means of engineering, then gravity should be able to be controlled as
well. It's likely very "energy expensive" at our current technological understanding, but if it can be worked I think the payoff would make the effort
worthwhile.

One of the things which I think should be considered for early prototype research is running an experiment for detecting "dark matter" or variations
of such in the presence of the so-called microwave-vacuum cavity thrusters. (They don't seem to be pushing against any normal mass, but perhaps
disturbing the normal distribution of virtual pair annihilations?) Measuring resistivity/permeability of a vacuum as an active process wouldn't hurt
as you're pushing things to the edge of breakdown with RF and EM. Something makes me think that would be the least energy-intensive process with the
most payoff with controlled input vs. some type of measurable output.

In terms of going fast? Might not seem too exciting at first, as thrust produced by such methods probably seems more comparable to mouse-farts vs. the
kind of kick you could get with standard propellant based propulsion. (Won't get you off the surface of a planet either, if that's what you're looking
for.) But in the long term you're not running out of any expendibles (no reaction mass), just applying energy to a seemingly closed system and getting
a force vector output. Over a period of months it'll be going faster than anything, and that's what could get you to another star in a relatively
short amount of time. (At least until something better comes along.) FTL? Who knows? We haven't really pushed anything there yet, still all untested
theory with nothing tangible to show for it.

I've never thought of probing everything and then have it recorded onto a database. Certainly interesting but, the problem still remains, how are we
going to get the probes out there in a reasonable amount of time, to make use of them?

That's a good question.

If you look at the various diagrams of how long it would take for exponential travel of Von Neumann probes, i.e. nano-scale collectors which can
harvest data by survey, self-replicate (limited) and then from point A send out oh, say, 10 'nano-ships' to the next 10 locations, and then those send
out ten, and so on, soon you will have events proceeding at an every growing rate such that they will have a 'wave' that is traversing the galaxy at
near speed of light (it would be a relative speed, not a 'real' rate or a 'real' acceleration).

So timescale.

If we started now, probes sent out at the speed of Voyager which is nearly out to the Heliopause, at a rate of 0.1 or 0.2 times the speed of light,
I'd say that in 200 years we'd start to be getting back information to populate the database of the quadrant with a diameter of oh, say 4 light years.
The math is not important, but the scale would be that in a few hundred years we'd have begun to populate the database, will have built the virtual
reality and will be able to 'voyage' from our desk chairs and visit asteroids, the planets in the solar system, the Kuiper belt objects, and other
bodies and there will be a lot to learn.

In 10,000 years we'd be getting back information from the Local Group and all their planets and bodies, and in 100,000 years at exponential rates of
expansion we'd be getting back information about the entire galaxy. (remember we'll have to send out and receive back, possibly via some kind of
sub-space relay so that might speed up as well).

Of course in 100-500 years 'technology' might surpass that data collection so it might reduce that rate down a couple orders of magnitude.

But the real point is this.
1. Speed of light travel, even 'warp' speed or 100x the speed of light is going to always be TOO SLOW. The Galaxy is VAST.
2. We want to 'visit' in safety, we don't want to contaminate things or BE contaminated (by dangerous elements, bacteria, viruses).
3. It has to be cost-effective and nano is going to be the cheapest and once they self-replicate they will be no cost.
4. We will no longer have the dangers of xenophobia, imperialism, fear and danger, because the virtual visiting is basically risk-free.

Now it's nice to be able to virtually visit the third planet orbiting a star in Andromeda, but what if we find there are sentient species. How will we
communicate and interact when all we'll have is a static image or even a cartoon.

Well that's another good question. Perhaps we can transport and translate and share the methods of 'holodeck virtual communication' and be able
'SkyPE' them, more or less virtually, but close enough to simulate 'real contact'. Information will be able to be stored down to the smallest details
of culture, language and all of that, so we will be able to interact with them in a way that is indistinguishable from the 'real thing'.

That way, information and progress can be shared and we all benefit and we won't have 'war' or aggression or anything like that it will all be 'safe'
and instant.

NOW, if we do find that there is a sentient species that is so like us that we actually want to go there, we'll know exactly where to go, and will not
be wasting any time. Having this virtual experience does not preclude going there physically (say to do exchange students).

You have to realize that 'time' is a function of size, and having a virtual holographic representation of the near galaxy (the Local Group) might take
more than one or two or even 100 generations (2,500 years), but that's a lot quicker than trying to go piece by piece, looking at everything and hope
we don't spend the rest of time looking for the one 'needle in the haystack'.

Once the information starts to 'roll in' it will be faster and faster and as technology improves for data transmission we'll find ways to shorten it
more and more.

In fact, if you look at geometric expansion once you have one Galaxy 'done' the next one will be a lot shorter. Once you have several done the entire
known Universe will be even quicker, because when you double, then double, then double it is soon nearing a virtual and simultaneous wave that will be
truly faster than light (in a virtual sense because it's at the same time).

That's a very well thought out response. I really do hope gravity is the result of some misunderstanding, the fact that today we think it warps space
is just... Stupid imo.

I totally agree with the idea that dark matter/energy could be the quantum particle fluctuations. It seems like most of the conspiracy theories
dealing with free energy and space propulsion has this idea in mind. I think that's another reason to look into it further.

As for propulsion with this idea, the beginning would be slow but, as time goes on I'm led to believe it would truly change propulsion as we know it.
Not having a propellant to burn is truly revolutionary.

This is certainly a close option to the top of the list for ideas pertaining to space exploration. I'm sure it would be an extremely effective way to
"map" out our universe, thoroughly. Although, even though it may not cost a lot in terms of what we're getting out of it, I would think it would be
extremely difficult to get the government to pass something like this. I mean, today we're only sending out a few probes to just scratch the surface
of our neighbors.

I suppose we could probably take advantage of entanglement, to potentially decrease the relay time in between transmissions. Allowing for a much more
time-effective result.

unfortunately, we wouldn't be able to see much in our lifetimes, if we were to do this. But who knows, at this point, it could be our only option.

Alternatively, most of my eggs are in the basket labelled "TOP SECRET ALIEN PROPULSION SPACE DRIVE". I really do think some of the people who come
forward, dealing with alien technology are occasionally telling the truth. If only we could get a pair of eyes in one of those projects to spill all
of the beans.

maybe something to do with Maxwell's equations, maybe further work in Ampère's law with Maxwell's addition??? No clue to be honest, read a little
about it but by no means a science person. Would lean on members who are better versed in such subjects.

I have a small issue when it comes to equations, it's very difficult to get extreme accuracy. You simply cannot account for every atom in the universe
affecting it. Not to mention, there are so many assumptions made in science already it's probably littered with error. Or that fact that we don't know
for 100% certainty, what the correct electron model is.

Science was suppose to be about careful observations, not math that allows for ridiculous outcomes. Such as going back in time. When you sit down and
think about time travel, it really makes no sense. Especially when there is no hard evidence. Hell, we don't even know what time is!

I'm not familiar with the physics, but it may be a case of - being in the right place at the right time...or manufacturing the right place.
I may have said something far too obvious for my understanding - excuse my naivete.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.